Re: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs

On 01.11.2016 16:59, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> As a teacher who uses live coding in a text editor, I usually write out
> all type signatures. Not being able to do that for instance methods is
> a minor annoyance.
>
> So I guess by sending this mail I started the proposal process
> properly?

Hi Joachim,

great to see you tune in! We’re currently trying out a Github-based process. If
you want, you could write up a proposal here [1], or at least make a reminder
post-it-ticket here [2] so maybe someone else does. :-)

Re: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2016, 19:43 +0100 schrieb David Luposchainsky:

> On 01.11.2016 16:59, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > As a teacher who uses live coding in a text editor, I usually write out
> > all type signatures. Not being able to do that for instance methods is
> > a minor annoyance.
> >
> > So I guess by sending this mail I started the proposal process
> > properly?
>
> Hi Joachim,
>
> great to see you tune in! We’re currently trying out a Github-based process. If
> you want, you could write up a proposal here [1], or at least make a reminder
> post-it-ticket here [2] so maybe someone else does. :-)

Re: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs

On 2016-11-01 05:55 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

> done:
>
> https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/13>
> I did not copy the detailed description from the GHC manual to the
> proposal yet. Is it ok to defer that until the proposal has been
> approved, or at least until approval is known to be likely?
>

I see no point in copying the detailed description verbatim. You can
just link to it, unless you intend to change something therein.